New Centralized Nuclear Plants: Still an Investment Worth Making?

...Even without Fukushima, the verdict on large centralized US nukes is probably in, for the following reasons:

1) They take too long: In the ten years it can take to build a nuclear plant, the world can change considerably (look at what has happened with natural gas prices and the costs of solar since some of these investments were first proposed). The energy world is changing very quickly, which poses a significant risk for thirty to forty year investments.

2) They are among the most expensive and capital-intensive investments in the world; they cost many billions of dollars, and they are too frequently prone to crippling multi-billion dollar cost overruns and delays. In May 2008, the US Congressional Budget Office found that the actual cost of building 75 of Americaís earlier nuclear plants involved an average 207% overrun, soaring from $938 to $2,959 per kilowatt.

3) And once the investments commence, they are all-or-nothing. You canít pull out without losing your entire investment. For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham represent $2.25 bn (1983) and $6 bn (1989) wasted investments in which nothing was gained and ratepayers and bondholders lost a good deal.

Some recent investments in centralized nuclear plants in other countries highlight and echo these lessons....

1. Same old anti-nuke "spin"...

Kris claims:For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham represent $2.25 bn (1983) and $6 bn (1989) wasted investments in which nothing was gained and ratepayers and bondholders lost a good deal.

You can't call Shoreham a failure by the nuclear industry.

The failure of Shoreham was totally orchestrated by the anti-nukes in the State of New York, and its anti-nuke Governor Mario Cuomo.

The State of New York and its Public Service Commission with anti-nuke members appointed by Cuomo, engineered the failure of Shoreham, and engineered the deal that stuck the ratepayers with the detritus of the deal.